Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Are women people?
Thursday, March 8, 2012 6:41 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:All my adult life, I’ve been pretty sure I’m a sentient, even semi-competent human being. I have a job and an apartment; I know how to read and vote; I make regular, mostly autonomous decisions about what to eat for lunch and which cat videos I will watch whilst eating my lunch. But in the past couple of months, certain powerful figures in media and politics have cracked open that certitude. You see, like most women, I was born with the chromosome abnormality known as “XX,” a deviation of the normative “XY” pattern. Symptoms of XX, which affects slightly more than half of the American population, include breasts, ovaries, a uterus, a menstrual cycle, and the potential to bear and nurse children. Now, many would argue even today that the lack of a Y chromosome should not affect my ability to make informed choices about what health care options and lunchtime cat videos are right for me. But others have posited, with increasing volume and intensity, that XX is a disability, even a roadblock on the evolutionary highway. This debate has reached critical mass, and leaves me uncertain of my legal and moral status. Am I a person? An object? A ward of the state? A “prostitute”? (And if I’m the last of these, where do I drop off my W-2?) In the hopes of clarifying these and other issues, below I’ve recapped recent instances of powerful men from the fields of law, politics and literature tackling the question that has captured America’s imagination: Are Women People? Case No. 1: U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes The Recap: Following a 10-week maternity leave, a three-year employee of a Houston debt collection agency filed a sex discrimination suit, alleging she was fired for asking permission to bring a breast pump to work. Hughes sided with the company, but added that the truth of the plaintiff’s claim was irrelevant. “Lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition,” he ruled in February, paraphrasing Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. “She gave birth on Dec. 11, 2009. After that day, she was no longer pregnant and her pregnancy-related conditions ended. Firing someone because of lactation or breast-pumping is not sex discrimination.” What We Learned: Possession of naturally functioning secondary sex characteristics is a fireable offense; a woman with a fetus has more rights than a woman with a baby. So, Are Women People? Only when they’re pregnant. Case No. 2: Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and Alabama State Senator Clay Scofield The Recap: Both lawmakers pursued—and then backed off from—laws that would require any woman getting an abortion to submit to the invasive procedure known as a transvaginal ultrasound and, in McDonnell’s words, “view her child.” “This was about empowering women with more medical and legal information that previously they were not required to get in order to give informed consent,” McDonnell said on March 2. What We Learned: Acquiring informed consent isn’t necessarily consensual; having an eight- to ten-inch wand inserted into your vagina against your will is “empowering”; because they lack vaginas, some male politicians seek empowerment in different ways. So, Are Women People? I’m guessing no, but you should ask Virginia delegate Kathy Byron, the woman who introduced the bill in her state. Case No. 3: House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa The Recap: The California congressman convened an all-male panel of clergy to discuss the mandate that insurance companies include coverage of birth control pills. He declined to include Sister Carol Keehan, president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, which oversees some 1200 Catholic health organizations across the U.S., or Georgetown law student and activist Sandra Fluke, whose health plan does not cover contraception. Of the latter woman, Issa stated, “As the hearing is not about reproductive rights but instead about the [Obama] administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience, he believes that Ms. Fluke is not an appropriate witness.” What We Learned: Freedom of conscience is not an appropriate topic for women to discuss; freedom from unplanned pregnancy, ovarian cysts, symptoms of endometriosis, irregular periods, migraines, and other health issues are not matters of public conscience; talking about icky body stuff is easier for dudes when ladies aren’t around. So, Are Women People? If you look at photos of this hearing, you wouldn’t even know that women exist. Case No. 4: Sad Loud Man in a Small Room Rush Limbaugh The Recap: “Slut,” “prostitute,” “she wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex,” “we want you to post the videos online so we can all watch,” etc. What We Learned: Taxpayers are billed across the board for private insurance plans; women who use birth control pills are not taxpayers; women whose insurance covers birth control pills are sluts and prostitutes; taxpayers enjoy watching movies about sluts and prostitutes. So, Are Women People? They’re more like really expensive blow-up dolls. Case No. 5: Novelist Jonathan Franzen The Recap: His much-discussed recent New Yorker essay argued that novelist Edith Wharton is an unsympathetic figure due to her wealth, conservative political views and the fact that she “wasn’t pretty.” (She “might well be more congenial to us now if, alongside her other advantages, she’d looked like Grace Kelly or Jacqueline Kennedy.”) Her unprettiness, according to Franzen, contributed to the sexual dysfunction of her marriage, while her success as a writer caused her husband’s mental illness and underscored her antipathy toward her own sex—her friendships with writers of similar stature such as Henry James and André Gide, Franzen says, showed that “she wanted to be with the men and to talk about the things men talked about.” What We Learned: Plain girls aren’t good in bed; female success is a brain-eating virus; a (female) writer forging relationships with other (male) writers is a form of penis envy; Jonathan Franzen might not think you’re pretty. So, Are Women People? Not quite—they’re objects with certain people-like traits. Case No. 6: Briefly Viable Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum The Recap: He calls his wife “the rock which I stand upon.” What We Learned: That’s apparently a compliment. So, Are Women People? No, they’re rocks! Finally, a definitive answer. Thanks, Senator Santorum! http://ideas.time.com/2012/03/07/subject-for-debate-are-women-people/
Thursday, March 8, 2012 8:55 AM
ANTHONYT
Freedom is Important because People are Important
Thursday, March 8, 2012 9:08 AM
KPO
Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.
Thursday, March 8, 2012 9:37 AM
BYTEMITE
Quote:Women are more human than men, imo.
Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:16 AM
PIZMOBEACH
... fully loaded, safety off...
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: Women are more human than men, imo.
Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:19 AM
Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:36 AM
Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:40 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: Hello Pizmo, Having been emotionally and financially eviscerated by the fairer sex, I'd personally conclude that the potential for evil and good resides in all of us.
Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:48 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Bytemite: Anthony: Yes. Also, I was harsh about the article, but I'm frustrated, because it seems like feminism has become all about self-pity and asking for pity. It's all about waiting for an invitation to appear on a panel, or hoping the males in congress and state legislature happen to favour your rights slightly more than appeasing their ever vocal constituents. All we've got is a bunch of women standing alone on their own, going home at the end of the day and crying into their internet diary blog: "Dear diary, today a man was mean to me. pouty face. Dear diary, today a man condescended to support feminism! Happiness and joy!" I'm asking again, where's the spark?
Thursday, March 8, 2012 11:11 AM
Thursday, March 8, 2012 11:36 AM
RIONAEIRE
Beir bua agus beannacht
Thursday, March 8, 2012 12:59 PM
HKCAVALIER
Thursday, March 8, 2012 2:31 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: Hello, I guess if murder is the measure of all sin, then women have some catching up to do. They do catch up, though. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246802/Record-number-women-arrested-violent-crimes.html Which means it's in them, just as it is in us. It just hasn't always found room for expression in society. We're all human, and we all wont for humanity at times. When we're free to shine, or cast our shadows, we do so. The cure isn't in the sex, but in the society, I think. And as Frem often points out, that starts with the children.
Thursday, March 8, 2012 2:43 PM
Thursday, March 8, 2012 2:53 PM
Thursday, March 8, 2012 6:31 PM
OONJERAH
Thursday, March 8, 2012 6:56 PM
Thursday, March 8, 2012 8:48 PM
FREMDFIRMA
Quote:Originally posted by Bytemite: If all of us are to be responsible for our own destinies then we must acknowledge all of us are equally human.
Quote:Originally posted by RionaEire: People are people, that means all people, not just some people.
Quote:Originally posted by Bytemite: I'm asking again, where's the spark?
Thursday, March 8, 2012 9:37 PM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Thursday, March 8, 2012 9:41 PM
MAGONSDAUGHTER
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: Hello Pizmo, Having been emotionally and financially eviscerated by the fairer sex, I'd personally conclude that the potential for evil and good resides in all of us. --Anthony
Thursday, March 8, 2012 9:47 PM
Quote: When you find yourself in a brawl with an opponent who has no mercy, the worst thing to do is curl up into a ball and whinge and whine - no matter how supposedly outmatched you are, you stand up and hurl defiance to your very last breath, even if it does you no good every moment you take to crush is one more someone else has to put the screws to the bastard who just did for you!
Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:11 PM
Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:16 PM
Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:39 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: I had an interesting discussion with a co-worker from Ethiopia the other day. We were talking about republicans. What he said was - people can un-learn civility. We saw it in Rwanda, we saw it in Yugoslavia. By civility he meant people peaceably living together, without some groups openly victimizing other groups. MD you still live in a civilized society. You and your society believe that the society exists to benefit ALL its members equally, as an ideal. You may fall short, you may be blind to divots that exist, but it is an ideal you hold. There are many significant percentages in the US that don't believe that - in fact believe the opposite. I won't go into how MANY states have voted to restrict abortion choice EVEN IF PRIVATELY PAID FOR, how MANY states are voting to restrict contraception especially the pill and other hormonal birth control, how MANY states are considering vaginal probe ultrasounds which is nothing less that state-mandated rape with an object, how MANY bills to restrict abortions, CONTRACEPTION AND WOMEN'S HEALTH FUNDING have been introduced, and worse, PASSED at both the state AND FEDERAL levels. In the US, civilization has gone and women are in a raw fight for their lives.
Thursday, March 8, 2012 11:13 PM
Friday, March 9, 2012 12:01 AM
Friday, March 9, 2012 3:28 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Bytemite: If you can't find genocidal or war-mongering female leaders in history, you're not looking hard enough, but I'd suggest Bloody Mary for starters.
Friday, March 9, 2012 3:49 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: Hello Pizmo, I'm sorry you feel that way. Let's start with your premise: Women are inherently humane and nonviolent. Men are inherently inhumane and violent.
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: If this premise is correct, then there should be no trending for an increase in violence committed by females. Women are always women, and women are all (or mostly) inherently humane and nonviolent. If humaneness is an innate condition to the female, then an increase in female initiated violence isn't possible. You can't buck nature. The percentage of violent females should remain the same throughout history- a tiny aberrant portion of the entire population. However, let's look at my premise: Women have all the same potentials as men, but they are shaped differently by society. If my premise is correct, then a trending of increase (or decrease) in either female or male violence is easily explained. There is no inherent biological factor to overcome. As society changes its mold for the population, the population responds.
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: I consider my premise to be better supported by evidence and reason.
Friday, March 9, 2012 4:22 AM
Quote:Fine, Bloody Mary, that's one - why don't others roll off anyone's tongue? You aren't being genuine if you really want us to believe there are equal numbers of female genocidal war mongers as men. You can certainly find exceptions - but that certainly doesn't make us equals in that regard.
Friday, March 9, 2012 4:26 AM
Quote:humane: characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed.
Quote:females may display more verbal and relational aggression, such as social rejection.
Friday, March 9, 2012 6:10 AM
Friday, March 9, 2012 6:26 AM
Quote: And... gender mutilation & rape... really? Do I have to point these things out to the women posting here??? Pretty much those are male exclusives, right?
Friday, March 9, 2012 7:04 AM
Quote:You aren't being genuine if you really want us to believe there are equal numbers of female genocidal war mongers as men.
Friday, March 9, 2012 7:09 AM
Quote:Males are typically more openly aggressive than females (Coie & Dodge 1997, Maccoby & Jacklin 1974, Buss 2005), which violent crime statistics support. Some researchers have suggested that females are not necessarily less aggressive, but that they tend to show their aggression in less overt, less physical ways. For example, females may display more verbal and relational aggression, such as social rejection.[2][3] Men do, however, express their aggression with violence more often than women." - end wiki
Friday, March 9, 2012 8:42 AM
Quote: males are more inclined to combat; females in danger will see to protecting the young
Friday, March 9, 2012 10:15 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Bytemite: Quote: And... gender mutilation & rape... really? Do I have to point these things out to the women posting here??? Pretty much those are male exclusives, right? Of course they're not. I don't know if you're aware, but you've got kind of a thing hanging out in front that's pretty easy to access and responds to stimulation. And you're just as susceptible to drugs as women are. You want another genocidal madwoman? Really? Look up "Indira Ghandi" (no relation to Mahatma Gandhi) sometime. Of course, her political opponents the Bhuttos from Pakistan were pretty bad themselves. Including our little female puppet dictator. Perhaps you also don't realize the Dowager Princess behind the Boxer Rebellion ordered a massacre of christian missionaries and converts, though to be fair, Lord Elgin and his French counterpart and their response was just as bad. Catherine the Great had peasants killed, Elizabeth II encouraged piracy and raids against the Spanish. Suffice to say, people who want to go after positions of power are going to have some very similar traits whether men or women, and ruthlessness can be part of that. In any case, you're falling prey to beliefs that set you and all women at a disadvantage. I would like to relieve you of them. http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/23/women-leaders-politics-oped-cx_ee_1024eaves.html I don't need your pedestal.
Friday, March 9, 2012 10:19 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: Given that societies have generally not allowed women into a position to be murdering warmongers, that goes again to support my 'shaped by society and not nature' argument. The question isn't just 'how many men' vs 'how many women' but 'how many women have we even allowed into the position at all?'
Friday, March 9, 2012 10:25 AM
Quote:How inhumane of us, telling women what they can and can't be.
Friday, March 9, 2012 10:34 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: Quote:females may display more verbal and relational aggression, such as social rejection. Here you actually seem to be arguing against female humaneness, unless you think verbal abuse and ostracizing folks doesn't cause suffering or distress.
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: I believe that in a fully equal society, women and men would have equal potentialities for violence. We just don't have many of those equal societies to look at currently. In societies where women are more equal, you see a larger percentage of females becoming violent.
Friday, March 9, 2012 10:39 AM
Quote:There is genetics to take into account, which is very real and has been shown to be. We still carry the traits of our ancestors; men ARE more aggressive and their sex drive IS much higher. That had reason back in the stone age, but no longer has, yet it's still the case.
Friday, March 9, 2012 10:41 AM
Quote:Of course they're not. I don't know if you're aware, but you've got kind of a thing hanging out in front that's pretty easy to access and responds to stimulation.
Quote:....one in every ten rape victims is male. Recent studies by the Department of Justice and other governmental agencies found that victimized men accounted for 6% (9,040 men) of completed rapes, 9 % (10,270 men) of attempted rapes, and 11% (17,130 men) of completed and attempted sexual assaults reported.
Friday, March 9, 2012 10:42 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Bytemite: Quote:Males are typically more openly aggressive than females (Coie & Dodge 1997, Maccoby & Jacklin 1974, Buss 2005), which violent crime statistics support. Some researchers have suggested that females are not necessarily less aggressive, but that they tend to show their aggression in less overt, less physical ways. For example, females may display more verbal and relational aggression, such as social rejection.[2][3] Men do, however, express their aggression with violence more often than women." - end wiki Gee, you don't think there isn't any... bias of perspective, do you? Surely its not possible that women were being treated differently by the justice system in regards to violent crimes? Perhaps less convictions and less harsh punitive measures? Here's a study looking into juvenile offenders. I think we can easily extrapolate what they have to say to an older population as well. http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/highlights/18_02_Highlights_08.pdf The only crimes that women are less likely to commit is homicide and sexual assault, but it doesn't mean they DON'T ever commit them.
Friday, March 9, 2012 10:50 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: Quote:How inhumane of us, telling women what they can and can't be. Hello, Indeed. I'm glad I'm not arguing for the humaneness of men.
Friday, March 9, 2012 10:52 AM
Quote:Evolutionary psychology (EP) is an approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological traits such as memory, perception, and language.
Quote:the proposal that the relevant internal mechanisms are adaptations—-products of natural selection—that helped our ancestors get around the world, survive and reproduce.
Quote:How many men in the world ever experience gender mutilation, while millions of WOMEN do?? And as to rape, my gawd, the number of women who rape men is MINISCULE!
Friday, March 9, 2012 10:55 AM
Quote: Quote: Evolutionary psychology (EP) is an approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological traits such as memory, perception, and language. That has nothing whatsoever to do with genetic drives regarding aggression and sex, which is what I've addressed, and ONLY what I've addressed.
Quote:By and large, a male's potential reproductive success is limited by the number of females he mates with, whereas a female's potential reproductive success is limited by how many eggs she can produce. This results in sexual selection, in which males compete with each other, and females become choosy in which males to mate with. As a result of being anisogamous, males are fundamentally promiscuous, and females are fundamentally selective.
Friday, March 9, 2012 11:00 AM
Friday, March 9, 2012 11:07 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: Hello, If murder is your singular litmus test for humaneness, it will be a very long time before I am able to test my point- a point contingent on society treating men and women the same. Even in Israel, where women are allowed into combat, and women have led the nation, they aren't regarded the equal of men or raised with the same values as men. However, if you are prepared to accept 'hurting others' as the basis for inhumane behavior, I think you may find that the sexes are much more evenly matched. When we raise women the way we raise men, indoctrinate them the way we indoctrinate men, then the only difference I expect to find in murder rates is likely to be the differnce caused by a variance of upper-body strength. I do NOT expect a difference of any imagined built-in humaneness of the female heart.
Friday, March 9, 2012 11:11 AM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL